COMMITTEE ON THE Wednesday 15 November 2006 Member in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.26 am. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): I thank Alex Easton, whose attendance has enabled this meeting of the Committee on the Preparation for Government to get off the ground. As usual, I remind members to switch off their mobile phones. Do we have any apologies? I am sure that this will be interesting. I will start with the Ulster Unionist Party, which should be easy. Mr McFarland: We are OK. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Ulster Unionists are all present and correct. Mr Easton is representing either Peter Robinson or Ian Paisley Jnr. Mr Kennedy: Steady on. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Easton can be Ian Paisley Jnr for the day. David Ford has said that representatives from the Alliance Party cannot be here until 11.00 am, but he is happy for us to proceed without them. He was on the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland, which produced the report. Seán Farren is representing himself, obviously. Do you have apologies from anyone, Dr Farren? Dr Farren: I am not sure which of the other two to apologise for. I will apologise for Alasdair McDonnell. I had better keep in with the party leader, so, when Patricia Lewsley arrives, she will represent Mark Durkan. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What about the Sinn Féin delegation? Mr O’Dowd: I am here on behalf of Conor Murphy. Ms Ruane: I am here on behalf of either Martin McGuinness or Michelle Gildernew. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will there be only the two of you attending? Mr O’Dowd: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I move to the minutes of the Committee’s meeting of 30 October 2006 — members will find copies in their packs. I do not know whether members have had a chance to look at them, and I do not know what will happen with the minutes of today’s meeting. However, do members have any issues to raise or corrections to make? Quite a few folk who were at that meeting are present today. Are members content with the minutes? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Dr Farren will be glad to know that the united Ireland benevolent fund is still safe from my donation. We wrote to the Secretary of State to request copies of the additional papers that were circulated to parties during or since the St Andrews discussions. Surprise, surprise, we did not receive any response, so my £50 is as safe as houses. I do not think that we will receive anything at this late stage, and I will be shocked if we do. Dr Farren: I trust that I can hold you to the bet when the time comes, Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. You can ring me at Ballynahinch social security office. I am sure that you will get me there, standing in line. [Laughter.] 10.30 am We also wrote a letter to the Secretary of State requesting details of the financial package that the Secretary of State and the Treasury agreed in 2005. No further details are available. I shall read from Peter Hain’s short letter: “You wrote to Simon Marsh on 6 November seeking details of the ‘financial package agreed in 2005 between the Secretary of State and HM Treasury’. Work was ongoing with the Treasury in late 2004 on such a package to support the restoration of devolution. However, nothing was ultimately finalised due to the breakdown in talks in December. As such, I regret that I cannot provide any further information.” We can assume that that is as far as the issue will be taken. The main reason that we are here today — Mr McNarry: On a point of information, Chairman, who is Mrs Pritchard? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Debbie is Mrs Pritchard. Mr McNarry: She is not the amazing Mrs Pritchard then? The Committee Clerk: Absolutely, yes. [Laughter.] Mr McNarry: I was a little worried. Mr Kennedy: Your private life is no concern of ours. The Chairman (Mr Wells): One never knows. Having guided the Committee through many tortuous mornings, one never knows. Mr McNarry: I believe that your party will be looking for more candidates than mine, all the same. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Perhaps we have become so familiar with Committee staff by calling them by their Christian names that their surnames have been forgotten. The main reason that the Committee has met today is to deal with business that has been referred by the economic challenges subgroup. I chaired both of the relevant meetings of the subgroup. I expect that there will be some overlap in discussions. David McNarry and David Ford attended those meetings, and I believe that Seán Farren was involved at some stages. The Committee must, therefore, consider the subgroup’s report. As usual, we must exclude Hansard from the next part of the meeting. Hansard is not expected to record the part of the meeting during which we examine and ratify the report. The tape will record our discussions for the benefit of the Committee Clerks. Are Members content that Hansard be excluded at this stage? Members indicated assent. The Committee met in private session from 10.31 am to 10.47 am. On resuming — 10.47 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): The subgroup feels that there are important issues to be dealt with, and it would like to continue developing alternative proposals in response to the Chancellor’s economic package outlined at the meeting of the parties on 1 November. As you can see from the press reports, there is a certain doubt about just how generous that economic package is, and, as it is alleged that there is £54 billion involved, the subgroup would like to explore that in considerable detail. We have to go ahead on the basis that the subgroup will still be in existence. It may not be. It can only be in existence until 24 November. It is highly unlikely that it could turn anything around by 24 November, or even 23 November, when we actually wind up. It might be worth discussing whether, if such a subgroup exists, it would be worth going ahead and continuing that work. The subgroup itself has no plans to meet between now and 23 November, but we agreed unanimously that we ask for permission to do that and for permission to continue the employment of its expert advisers. That is even more complicated, and we have to give the subgroup the authority to do anything. The Committee Clerk: Just to be absolutely clear, the subgroup has offered to do more work on an economic package, if the Preparation for Government Committee and circumstances permit. If that were to be agreed, there would clearly be a need to retain the services of the economic advisers. The question now is whether it is appropriate for the subgroup to continue to provide input in response to the Chancellor’s package — to analyse it and to provide an agreed all-party alternative. Mr McFarland: My sense is that the issue of the economic package will go into the party-leader mix. We are getting down — as we always do — to the eleventh hour when the serious business will or will not be done. The subgroup may well provide an alternative forum for discussing details. The question is how much it will cost to keep on the advisers. David might have a view on that. Mr McNarry: The advisers will be needed only if it is appropriate; they may not be required. It would be up to the subgroup — if it were to continue with its work — to judge when they would be required and for what reason. Also, the two advisers may not be available when we need them, so we would need to know that there was back-up and that matters would be dealt with. If that were “in the bag”, so to speak, we would not need to come back and ask permission. Generally, the subgroup is anxious to continue, particularly on the back of the Chancellor’s package. There is consensus that the subgroup ought to prepare a counter-proposal, because the Chancellor’s package amounts to nothing. After all the work the subgroup has done to produce the reports, which were endorsed by this Committee, we receive this outrageous letter from the Secretary of State with reference to the first report. I do not think that he read the report; if he had, he could not have replied in such a manner. This is the Secretary of State’s Committee, but, as I said before, when we requested that Ministers should attend to give evidence, he took every opportunity to spurn this Committee and the subgroup. We wanted to get Maria Eagle to come here; look at the letter we received from her. She asked us to write to her officials and tell them what we wanted her to respond to but said that in the meantime she would not be coming anywhere near us. That is damnable stuff. The idea is that we will get her — if we continue our work — not only as Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment but also as Minister of Education. Education needs are high on our agenda, and those needs have been addressed in the report’s recommendations and its executive summary. Coming back to the counter-proposal, it appears to those of us on the subgroup that without interfering in the party political process we have so far managed to produce everything with consensus. It also appears to the members of the subgroup that with regard to the economic needs of Northern Ireland, the argument is enhanced if it is presented unanimously, by all parties. That is what we have had to do in the subgroup, rather than have one party asking for this and another asking for that, resulting in a Dutch auction. There is an opportunity here for consensus to develop on what is real. That is why we are recommending a counter-proposal. All the reports contain proposals, and, apart from that for corporation tax, the Chancellor has not addressed any. Of course, with the corporation tax proposal, he virtually told us to go and chase ourselves. We would like to come back to those proposals. On page three — Excuse me. May I have a glass of water? The Chairman (Mr Wells): There could be a by-election coming soon. [Laughter.] Mr Kennedy: There are no by-elections. Mr McNarry: Mr Kennedy would not even attend the funeral, never mind a by-election. Mr Kennedy: It would be a lesson in how to knock on doors. [Laughter.] Mr McNarry: Paragraph 3(d) of the minutes of the previous meeting indicates that the subgroup has been given permission to commission some independent study on water reform legislation. Therefore, issues remain that must be chased up. Another hot potato is whether there will be a Preparation for Government Committee to which the subgroup can report. What is happening with the Programme for Government Committee? Could a future Programme for Government Committee supersede the Preparation for Government Committee? If so, would the economic challenges subgroup seek direction from that Programme for Government Committee? My essential point — and I speak with the consensus of the subgroup — is that there is still work to do, particularly on the economic package. I was sorry to hear about the leak to the ‘Belfast Telegraph’. Earlier, the Committee offered its congratulations to the officials who have been involved with the subgroup and the Preparation for Government Committee. We also thanked you, Chairman, and your Co-Chairman. Your work, and that of the officials, was important. A lot of people have worked hard over the summer and up until now. However, what has that work been for? If it has been to provide Peter Hain with a report that he can stick on a shelf somewhere to gather dust — maybe in Wales, rather than Northern Ireland — that is bad business, particularly for our economy. The consensus is clear: there is further work to be done. Therefore, in principle, can the Committee agree to that work continuing? If another Committee supersedes the Preparation for Government Committee, we should recommend that the work continues in the new Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Seán has indicated that he wants to speak. I will allow every member the opportunity to speak, but Seán has, perhaps, been this Committee’s most dedicated member — Mr McNarry: Oh no he has not. Mr Kennedy: Do not be starting a row. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I do not know whether his good works will get him — or any of us — into heaven. The Committee Clerk has given me a short note. Before Seán and other members contribute, I want to clarify that the existing Assembly will fold on 23 November. No development will stop that happening — it is inevitable. What happens after that is a different issue. The Standing Orders that control this Assembly will also fall, and the existing Committee and subgroup will cease to operate. Therefore, we need to discuss the practical reality of what will happen between now and 23 November. If there is a new Assembly, we will have to take the following into account: the contents of the new Standing Orders; whether there will be a business Committee; and whether the Preparation for Government Committee will be reconvened. Those issues will, of course, depend on what the Secretary of State directs. There is the possibility that this Committee and the economic subgroup could remain in place to provide advice to the Programme for Government Committee. Of course, the Programme for Government Committee has not even got off the ground, and I believe that it is unlikely to meet before 23 November. Therefore, I concur with Mr McNarry’s view that all that this Committee can do is agree, in principle, that the work of the subgroup should continue, if possible, under the terms of any new Assembly set up after 24 November. The benefit of that approach is that the Government would not have to go through the process of setting up a new Preparation for Government Committee and economic subgroup. Beyond that, I do not believe that there is any more that we can do. Dr Farren: I assume that work remains to be done and that there will be opportunities for its completion, whatever context is determined. From our side of the table, it seems that there is one glaring weakness in the financial package that has been put together so far. That weakness is that the Chancellor can point to the commitments that have already been made and the large amounts of money that have already been set aside for them — which, in effect, is what he did when he made his announcement. Significant capital investment commitments have already been budgeted for with respect to infrastructure and all of the other key issues that we have identified as requiring investment. If we seek a financial package that goes above and beyond that, we must be much more specific about what we want the additional funding for. There is a gap in our financial package with respect to that level of specificity. It does not advance our case very far to simply say that we want additional investment in our infrastructure. Everyone knows that, and the comprehensive spending review will clearly provide for some investment. Indeed, an investment programme for the roads network has already been announced, and it will take us up to 2015. All of that is necessary. There has also been investment in R&D and skills, and so on — in fact, every Government Department has documents setting out its vision and investment intentions, particularly with respect to capital investment, over the next five to 10 years. 11.00 am However, key requirements need to be fast-tracked — for example, the Belfast to Derry road. The planned completion of a modern road network between Toome and Derry in 2016 is so far into the future that it will not be much help in addressing the economic investment needs of the next five to seven years. We must identify a number of key investment areas that can be fast-tracked and which will therefore require additional funding. Otherwise, what answer do we have for the Chancellor when he points out that our Ministers have already received provision for those investments in their budgets over the next three to five years? We would have to acknowledge that such provision has already been made. Therefore, a request for a financial package that provides additional investment can have no validity unless the purpose for which the extra money is required is clearly stated. Thus far, we have not yet made a persuasive or substantial case for releasing extra funds. We must now move beyond the level of generality that was used to open the debate and be much more specific. That will require co-operation with Government Departments, particularly with officials in the Department of Finance and Personnel, so that we can identify the essential extras that can really make a difference. We must try to secure additional investment so that certain programmes can be fast-tracked, thus enabling them to be completed more quickly than was originally planned. I want to also raise a more specific issue that has arisen out of the corporation tax argument. At the back of my mind, I always have the question that was posed this morning by Seamus McKee on the ‘Good Morning Ulster’ radio show. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Seán, I am sorry to interrupt, but we are about to lose our quorum. Dr Farren: Can I come back to this point? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sinn Féin wants to state its view, and that is quite right, but our difficulty is that we have to agree this motion, and if our quorum folds we will have to hang around to see if we can get somebody else. Dr Farren: Do we not have to set terms of reference for any work that may be done? The Chairman (Mr Wells): At the least, we need to get this out of the way in principle. If we do not, the rest of the agenda will fall. I am sorry to cut people off, but if we have to stop then no one will get to speak. The motion that we have is in line with what Mr McNarry said. It is: that the Committee agrees in principle that the work of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland should continue, if possible, under the terms of any Assembly set up after 24 November. If someone wishes to speak against the motion then I must allow it, but the danger is that Mr Easton is about to leave and unless Ms Lewsley, or someone else, comes in, the meeting will close. Mr Kennedy: The Alliance Party is due. Mr McFarland: I have to go as well; I have a meeting at 11.30 am. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there any opposition to the motion? Ms Ruane: I understand our difficulties in relation to time, but if good work is happening, and the Committee has asked that the work should continue, then should it not continue? If researchers are working on a project that is then stopped, momentum will be lost, and throwing the matter into the future will cause difficulties. Is there some way to retain the researchers, and is there any possibility of adding a researcher from the South of Ireland? I know from having met groups such as the Ulster Farmers’ Union that we need researchers who know how the South works. Mr McNarry: That has been asked for and it can be done. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can the Committee Clerk advise on the issue of researchers? The Committee Clerk: The advice that the Committee has been given is correct. November 23 is the break point, and the Committee has no authority beyond that date. The key person to advise on the package offered by the Chancellor is Victor Hewitt, who was with the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) and is now the director of the Economic Research Institute for Northern Ireland. He is available to meet all the parties together, but not individually, and he will be available for your meeting with the DFP officials this afternoon. Mr Hewitt has done some preparatory work and if you, as a collection of parties, want him to continue, irrespective of the subgroup, he is available and happy to do so. I would certainly commend him to you. Mr McFarland: Before we lose our quorum, can the Committee agree on this? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee cannot make a decision on the economic advisers. That is a separate issue for the Clerk to get advice on from the Head of Procurement in the Assembly. If the Committee decides in principle that the work will continue, then the subgroup will have some authority to make approaches concerning its advisers. I hate rushing people, and it is not intentional, but the Committee has only two minutes to make a decision on this issue before the meeting folds. I propose that we hang around for half an hour to see if we can find Ms Lewsley. Mr McFarland: I must leave at 11.10 am; I need to get somewhere else by 11.30 am. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Well that is it. We have no prospect of anybody coming except Ms Lewsley. Dr Farren: I do not know where she is. The Chairman (Mr Wells): MLAs in this Building should jolly well be down here. Ms Ruane: Sinn Féin will agree in principle that the subgroup should report to the Programme for Government Committee. The Committee Clerk: At this stage we do not know whether there will be a Programme for Government meeting. Mr O’Dowd: Sinn Féin is agreeing with the motion in principle. Ms Ruane: We agree, but we are saying that the Programme for Government Committee is the correct place for it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You are agreeing with it, but you are not making it a condition that it has to go to the Programme for Government Committee? Mr O’Dowd: No, we are not making an amendment. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can we reach agreement now? Ms Ruane: The correct place for it is the Programme for Government Committee. Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Folks, on the basis that we cannot get two other MLAs, which is an utter disgrace — and I wish to place that on the record — I am afraid that that is it. This may well be the last meeting of this Committee. Much good work has been done by the Preparation for Government Committee and the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland, and I would like to thank the Committee staff and all the other support staff, including Hansard, the Clerks and Research Services, who have been extremely diligent. It has been a pleasure to chair this Committee. I have had to rap that glass only twice in four months to draw people to order. Mr McNarry: One of those times was to me. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McNarry walked out of one meeting, complaining that he had not been given sufficient time in which to speak. Mr McNarry: I have not been given a chance to speak since. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): Perhaps Mr McNarry should check the Hansard report. We had a long debate as to whether the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone is Ms, Mrs or Miss Gildernew. Those are the only issues over which we have fallen out. Chairing the meetings has been a pleasure. I do not know whether, in this form — [Interruption.] Is David Ford on his way? The Committee Clerk: Alan McFarland has to leave. Mr Ford said that the earliest that he could be here is 11.15 am. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Where is Ms Lewsley? Dr Farren: Do we have a quorum? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can someone find out where Ms Lewsley is? Dr Farren: A phone call has been made. Mr McNarry: Can we adjourn for 15 minutes? Mr Kennedy: Have we not settled most of the business? We have gone as far as we can. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We were to consider the Secretary of State’s response to the Committee’s first report, but we will not have the chance to do that. Mr McNarry: There is no need to do that; there was no response. Mr Kennedy: We were enjoying your valedictory speech. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thank you all for that. It has been a pleasure to work with you. The Committee has been most constructive, and, perhaps, it will be a model for future Assemblies. However, the last time we said that, it was 12 years before the Assembly returned. Mr Kennedy: Does that mean that the Chairman is having the last word? [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): Absolutely. I will be the last person to speak on the last day, which ensures — Mr Kennedy: We are doomed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): As you said, Danny, we are like the last passengers on the Titanic. Mr McNarry: Should we all stand for the National Anthem? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Perhaps not. Mr Kennedy: The Hansard report will read: “and then there was hand-to-hand fighting”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We also thank the catering staff, who have treated us so well over the past four months. Mr Kennedy: And Mr Eastwood. Mr McFarland: Chairman, as you are finished, I wish to thank everyone, making me the last member to speak. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thank you, Mr McFarland. Adjourned at 11.12 am. < previous / next > |